Pantheism is often been described as being a synonymous euphemism for atheism (since the big ‘bad’ “A” word carries so much social stigma across the world that the term “pantheism” substituted makes disbelief in a personal god sound a bit more mild). But why then are New Age religions decribed as being somewhat pantheistic. A pantheistic “god” could be envisioned as being sort of of an “essence” type whereas a theistic god is an anthropomorphic guy-in the-sky deity which the Abrahamic religions believe in).

Signature

“The Good Book—one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined.” Ashley Montagu

A pantheistic “god” could be envisioned as being sort of of an “essence” type whereas a theistic god is an anthropomorphic guy-in the-sky deity which the Abrahamic religions believe in).

The “essence” definition presents fewer moral objections than the usual anthropomorphic definitions. That may be why many people see it as Atheism Lite. But this type of pantheism still presents the same scientific objection as theism and design - no evidence for the “essense” god - so it still represents an affront to reason.

Pantheism and atheism are not the same, pantheism is just one more failure for people to bring themselves to say “I don’t know”. I can’t believe that it is so hard to say, I don’t know that people need to make up more and more elaborate ways at escaping it without clashing with science.

Signature

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

pantheism is just one more failure for people to bring themselves to say “I don’t know”. I can’t believe that it is so hard to say, I don’t know that people need to make up more and more elaborate ways at escaping it without clashing with science.

I agree with you for the most part. Pantheism’s way of avoiding “I don’t know” for the Problem of Evil is simpler because it doesn’t have elaborate constructs like Original Sin. But its god construct appears less understandable because it doesn’t equate to a personal god. Deism’s method of avoidance may be the simplest of all, but it’s still an affront to science.

Pantheism is often been described as being a synonymous euphemism for atheism (since the big ‘bad’ “A” word carries so much social stigma across the world that the term “pantheism” substituted makes disbelief in a personal god sound a bit more mild). But why then are New Age religions decribed as being somewhat pantheistic. A pantheistic “god” could be envisioned as being sort of of an “essence” type whereas a theistic god is an anthropomorphic guy-in the-sky deity which the Abrahamic religions believe in).

Pantheism is an “ism” with “the” in it but no negation. A slippery slope to the sin of idolatry! Consider the “pan” and recall monotheism. Bingo—all is one in the Absolute. Hegel. Philosophy sublates religion. Invert the idealism—Marx. Apply the result—Lenin. Follow through—Mao Zedong. Take away the number you first thought of—Communism minus the Absolute equals get rich quick.

Where does that leave pantheism? As the Esperanto of religions. Where does that leave getting rich? Well, money talks louder than Esperanto speakers.